Jump to content

Neil1993

Members
  • Content Count

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About Neil1993

  • Rank
    Launches IRL First

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    neil_woodcock1

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Great White North

Recent Profile Visitors

875 profile views
  1. DoubleDouble? Tim Hortons approves this reference!
  2. I use Newton's laws in my job on a daily basis. If they were wrong I, and any other engineer or scientist, would sure as hell know. If you're so sure it will work, spend your own money, develop the concept, and put it in space. Just be careful and don't try to get anyone to fund you. Getting investments for perpetual motion machines is fraud in some places.
  3. I have 2 videos of rockets that I launched. The first was from 2015. and the second was from exactly a year later in 2016. Enjoy:
  4. Could you maybe provide links to your articles? It might make it easier for others to explain it to you.
  5. Or, as unlikely as it may seem sometimes, cooperation is at the core of all human endeavours.
  6. It won't move. Let's just gloss over the technical magic of having a ferro-fluid which will change phases on a whim. In fact, it isn't necessary to consider a ferro-fluid at all, given the system you are proposing. I'm not sure if you realized this, but Iron is already ferromagnetic. Having an electromagnet on the ship is essentially the same as tossing a ball from your left hand to your right. When your ball leaves your left hand (this is your gun system) you gain some momentum. However, when you catch it with your right hand (your electromagnets) The ball imparts the momentum it has gaine
  7. One great way to determine if this is actually a feasible system is to try the following thought experiment: Imagine how cheap or easy this is to build and test. Is it cheaper and easier than regular rocket motors? Given the diagram, I would say yes. Can it be made very light? I would also guess that it could be. Based on these factors, does it seem that it will be more effective than a traditional engine? If you determined in 1. that it is more effective, then ask yourself why so many space agencies with such considerable resources and so many ideas have yet to try anything resemb
  8. I think simply stating "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" and then PROPERLY applying this within the proposed concept is enough to show that the internal forces cancel out and this concept will get you nowhere. Remember, while rockets use this same principle (called Newton's third law), THEY LEAVE SOMETHING BEHIND. This is the burned fuel. The rocket pitches out tiny bits of this fuel very quickly and, in return, gains tiny bits of momentum. Because accelerating the particles takes a force, an equal and opposite force MUST act upon the craft. QED
  9. Kind of? No one really knows. The light reaching you will be highly red-shifted, so you won't really be able to see anything. Also, no useful discussion can reall be had about what happens after crossing the event horizon. As far as we know, physics as we know it ceases to matter at that point
  10. It sounds like you may be using evidence from the movie. I'll have to take your word for it since I actually haven't seen the movie (this is an even more terrible sin when you consider the fact that I had received tickets to a pre-screening but have them to some friends because I had too much work that night). It might be possible that the OMS system that was removed were just the sections used for attitude adjustment or it was like Luke suggested where they just removed redundant components.
  11. OMS systems aren't designed to put out huge amounts of Delta-v. Rather, they are for fine attitude and translation adjustment and quick response. It is conceivable that eliminating this system rather than using it in flight would result in a net gain in Delta-v.
×
×
  • Create New...